23 comments:

Anybody who commits or advocates violence over a scientific matter is a deranged individual. This applies to those who wrote threatening emails to climate scientists, as well as those like David Suzuki, who advocate jailing skeptics.

From that article:

There is no solid scientific dispute over the simple physics that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse-effect gases warm the earth's atmosphere, and that emissions of these gases from human activities are largely responsible for the increased temperatures over recent decades.

The first part of that is true, the second part is complete horseshit.

From the IPCC's AR4, section 2.4 titled “Attribution of climate change”:The observed patterns of warming, including greater warming over land than over the ocean, and their changes over time, are simulated only by models that include anthropogenic forcing.

So, that is the "scientific basis", from the most authoritative of sources, for attribution of the current warming: their computer programs dont work unless they include the alleged effects of CO2. With this kind of logic, you could also "prove" that the recent warming is due to an alien spaceship sending warming rays to earth.

So that fact is very much in dispute. Of course you can say that "no reputable scientists believe otherwise" by categorizing any scientists that believes otherwise as 'disreputable'.

In other news, Lizzy May is being "publicly flogged" (figuratively of course) here.

"The observed patterns of warming ... are simulated only by models that include anthropogenic forcing", means that, without the anthropogenic component in the climate model, the recent warming trend cannot be explained.

Jerome doesn't trust computer models. Of course he does not know enough about them to be able to judge them intelligently, but he shoots off his yap at length anyway.

And he dishonestly smears David Suzuki by trying to equate wanting someone to be jailed with advocating violence. Suzuki wants climate denialist liars to be jailed and I have much sympathy with that view. I also want cokeheads and drunk drivers to be jailed, even when they are lying Conservative hypocrites.

Holly Stick:Jerome doesn't trust computer models. Of course he does not know enough about them to be able to judge them intelligently, but he shoots off his yap at length anyway.

Computer models are software that try to reproduce the climate. They are only as good as our understanding of the climate, and even less than that, since the particular computer models used to predict catastrophe model the earth using cells which are 100km by 100km, or something in that range. They have yet to produce predictions which are accurate and can only reproduce the past by major tweaking.

I'm more than willing to trust climate models that have shown their effectiveness and accuracy, but im not about to trust climate models just on some expert's word.

So you want me jailed? Awesome. Good luck with that. Jailing someone is violence btw, it's just violence administered by the state.

Eliminate all other factors, and the one which remains must be the truth.Sherlock Holmes The Sign of the Four (1890)

That may very well apply to a criminal investigation in which you can be reasonably certain that:a) you know all the factorsandb) you understand perfectly well how all factors behave

Neither of these conditions is true for climate science, which is still in its infancy.

Since you regard the first part of the statement as true, what's your theory?

I dont have a particular theory, but my point is mainly that there is no proof that adding CO2 to the atmosphere as we are currently doing will lead to catastrophic warming.

In fact, even the IPCC concedes that the extra CO2 by itself will not be catastrophic. This is the simple physics part which is often cited, doubling of CO2, everything else being equal, leads to about 1 deg C of warming.

According to the IPCC, catastrophic warming occurs only by water vapor feedback - a hypothesis, which suggests that extra CO2 leads to a bit of warming, and that extra warming amplifies itself by adding water vapor to the atmosphere.

I do have an alternative hypotheses though: the water vapor feedback does not exist (observations support that it does NOT exist but these observations are then in contention)

Haven't you disgraced yourself enough for one day? You clearly didn't understand what it is you quoted in your first comment.

This is very revealing moment, Jerome. It demonstrates that you don't approach what you're reading with the proper spirit of inquiry one expects from someone with your education. One wonders how entrenched a habit that is.

This is very revealing moment, Jerome. It demonstrates that you don't approach what you're reading with the proper spirit of inquiry one expects from someone with your education.

Which quote are you talking about? the IPCC's?

Because I disagree (shocking I know). Im not surprised that you dont think much of me, after all we've never really agreed on anything. But I do try to look at the science objectively and I've been looking for a proof of global warming for the longest time. I used to believe in it - just because I took the scientist's word for it.

I understandThe observed patterns of warming, including greater warming over land than over the ocean, and their changes over time, are simulated only by models that include anthropogenic forcing.

this perfectly well. They cant reproduce the past warming without using CO2. Also, if they factor in CO2, they can reproduce not just the warming, but the pattern of warming. I get it. I just dispute that this represents a scientific proof, and I believe I have hundreds of years of scientific tradition to back me up.

Computer models are only calculations, tons of very complex calculations, but still, that's all it is, ultimately. And having calculations match past events is necessary and useful. But the scientific method requires that predictions be made, and that these predictions match up with observations. Climate models have not done that yet.

"...They are only as good as our understanding of the climate..." Actually they are much better than your understanding of the climate, Jerome.

"...Coincidentally, there is a related paper (Chung, Yeomans and Soden) also in press (sub. req.) at GRL which also compares the feedbacks in the models to the satellite radiative flux measurements and also comes to the conclusion that the models aren’t doing that badly..."

Computer models are only calculations, tons of very complex calculations, but still, that's all it is, ultimately. And having calculations match past events is necessary and useful. But the scientific method requires that predictions be made, and that these predictions match up with observations. Climate models have not done that yet.

List of things models have predicted that turned out to happen (for example, warming of the lower, mid, and upper troposphere; warming of ocean surface water; cooling after large volcanic eruptions, etc...).

Seriously, Jerome, I think you're suffering from a very high degree of confirmation bias.

I'm not committing myself at all to any claim. Never have, never will, because *I* and many people do not have the skill to interpret the high-level science that attempts to prove anything.

What we all (or most of us) have the capacity to do is to notice when claims are falsified or when claims are being made on very little, if any evidence. That characterises, OVERWHELMINGLY, the critique of AGW. Why that isn't more of issue with you is something I don't understand.

In the end, who would you rather throw in with? A cabal of frauds, doddering sell-outs with one foot in the grave and outright kooks or people (thousands) who are engaging in actual scientific research?

In any case, it's a distraction and a waste of time for laypeople to debate this, when what we really should be doing is observing.

On models, unfortunately I dont have the time or knowledge to respond to all the points being made. I will look into it though.

Ti-Guy:

Yeah Im sure I suffer from confirmation bias. That's why Im here debating with you guys - to see if you guys can show me Im wrong. On the other hand I think those who dont suffer from confirmation bias are few and far between.

As to your other point, I consider, from my non-climate scientist point of view, that some (not all) critiques of AGW are quite convincing. Yet, these are treated with such disdain by the pro-AGW crowd that this, more than anything else, leads me to believe there is something wrong with the pro-AGW case.

I also believe that the financial incentives actually drives the alarmist side more than any oil money Lindzen may have received. I wouldnt throw in my hat with 'frauds and kooks', but there are many prominent skeptics who dont fit that description.

Hell, when is someone going to make a nice simple toy model to illustrate the principles behind the larger models, and why we can have the confidence (and error bars) we have? I understand Jerome's skepticism; I'm a modeller in a different field and that helps me grasp what models can and cannot be expected to do. If you're not in that world, I can appreciate the doubt. It's a commnication issue that hasn't been solved yet, and is exploited by nutters like Monckton when they rant on about the irreducible chaos of the climate. Hmm - yup, so how come I can know with some confidence what the temperature will be in six months (within certain confidence bounds), but not the weather in two weeks? Dead easy to explain, but the cuckoo scientists out there don't care - they just want to confuse the hell out of as many people as possible. Grr.

"Yet, these are treated with such disdain by the pro-AGW crowd that this, more than anything else, leads me to believe there is something wrong with the pro-AGW case."I think Jerome's on to something with his "distain" filter: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDS_denialismhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationismhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MMR_vaccine_controversyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowsing